The Keys to Election 2004: Thirteen Diagnostic Questions Prove to Be a Surprisingly Accurate Barometer for Presidential Elections

By Lichtman, Allan J. | Social Education, January-February 2004 | Go to article overview

The Keys to Election 2004: Thirteen Diagnostic Questions Prove to Be a Surprisingly Accurate Barometer for Presidential Elections


Lichtman, Allan J., Social Education


Despite a record number of Democrats seeking the presidential nomination, their prize will not be worth much unless the now sizzling economy fizzles in the next few months. Even then George W. Bush may well win election to a second term in office. This good news for President Bush and grim news for Democrats comes from the Keys to the White House, a prediction system based on the analysis of every American presidential election since 1860. The Keys first predicted a Bush victory on 24 April 2003 in the column I regularly write for the Montgomery Gazette newspaper. That prediction still stands today.

I developed the Keys system in 1981, in collaboration with Volodia Keilis-Borok, a world-renowned authority on the mathematics of prediction models. History shows that the choice of a president does not turn on debates, advertising, speeches, endorsements, rallies, platforms, promises, or campaign tactics. Rather, presidential elections are primarily referenda on how well the party holding the White House has governed during its term. The Keys give specificity to this idea of how presidential elections work, assessing the performance, strength, and unity of the party holding the White House to determine whether or not it has crossed the threshold that separates victory from defeat. (See Table 1, "Keys to the White House")

Retrospectively, the Keys accurately account for the results of every presidential election from 1860 through 1980, much longer than any other prediction system. Prospectively, the Keys predicted well ahead of time the popular-vote winners of every presidential election from 1984 through 2000. (See Table 2, "How the Thirteen Keys Turned") As a nationally-based system the Keys cannot diagnose the results in individual states and thus are more attuned to the popular vote than the Electoral College results. The 2000 election, however, was the first time since 1888 that the popular vote verdict diverged from the Electoral College results. And the Keys still got the popular vote right in 2000, just as they did in 1888 when Democrat Grover Cleveland won the national tally but lost in the Electoral College to Republican Benjamin Harrison and in 1876 when Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes.

No such divergence, moreover, would have occurred in the 2000 election except that ballots cast by African American voters in Florida were discarded as invalid at much higher rates than ballots casts by white voters. As demonstrated in a study I prepared for the United States Commission on Civil Rights, if the rejection rate in Florida for ballots cast by blacks had been equivalent to the rate for whites, more than 50,000 additional ballots cast by blacks would have been counted in the election. Surveys of black voting show that the overwhelming majority of these ballots would have been cast for Al Gore.

The Keys are 13 diagnostic questions that are stated as propositions that favor reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer of these propositions are false or turned against the party holding the White House, that party wins another term in office. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. The keys indicate incumbent party success or failure long before the polls or any other forecasting models are of any value.

The Keys differ from other prediction models in significant ways. Unlike many models developed by political scientists, the Keys include no polling data, but are based on the big picture of how well the party in power and the country are faring prior to an upcoming election. In addition, the Keys do not presume that voters are driven by economic concerns alone. Voters are less narrow-minded and more sophisticated than that; they decide presidential elections on a wide-ranging assessment of the performance of incumbent parties. The most renowned economic-based model--developed by Professor Ray Fair of Yale University--missed the outcome in 1976 because it ignored Watergate and the collapse of Vietnam. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

The Keys to Election 2004: Thirteen Diagnostic Questions Prove to Be a Surprisingly Accurate Barometer for Presidential Elections
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.